There are much simpler mechanisms to making that would make the enforcement mechanism more effective without destroying the economy, like prioritizing them by salary instead of randomly.

You could also just have a more proactive government which punishes businesses for abusing the visa category.

"Immigrants taking good jobs" isn't an immigrant problem, it's a big-business problem

The real world has much more light bouncing fidelity than even modern games. There are still dark things we can't see.

Physically based rendering should be exactly the opposite of what the article is complaining about: it gives you the "correct" way to communicate how light is moving through a space. So the player and the game designer should be able to communicate much more easily, and the artists should be able to focus on actually communicating what they need to, instead of tweaking non physical phong and ambient lighting parameters

But despite denying it ("This isn’t hyperbole"), it seems like most of this article is, in fact, hyperbole.

The main (incredibly grating) assumption is that government is intently destructive and non-productive:

> But only one of them leads to capital accumulation and becomes an engine of generational wealth growth.

> ...It is unavoidable that the government appropriates and ultimately compromises and destroys a lot of productive capital. Well and good, provided the economy can regenerate it at least as fast as it is harvested.

Government is only unproductive to the extent the people want it to be. Governments fund education, nutrition, and support immigration, i.e., produce essentially _all_ of the available _human capital_. Research and development produce enormous values both for society and the economy (the internet was designed, tested, built, and expanded by a government!). Governments foot the bill for enormous utility and trandportion subsidies to enable entire economies to exist at all.

The only difference between a government agency and a corporation is the profit _motive_. The government can do exactly the same things as a corporation would, and in fact, that's why it's relatively common for governments to charter purpose made corporations to do certain things.

The inefficiency and ineffectiveness of government is mostly a contrivance of people who _want_ government to be ineffective and inefficient -- mostly as a rhetorical bludgeon to further a "small government" agenda (i.e., moving as much economic power out of the hands of agencies chartered to do something _other than_ maximize shareholder value)

The parameter of that distribution is the expected (aka average) rate. If the intervals are time intervals, then the proper units of the parameter are events/second

Table 4 shows the "size" of the operators when fully expanded to "eml" applications, which is quite large for +, -, ×, and /.

Here's one approach which agrees with the minimum sizes they present:

        eml(x, y             ) = exp(x) − ln(y) # 1 + x + y
        eml(x, 1             ) = exp(x)         # 2 + x
        eml(1, y             ) = e - ln(y)      # 2 + y
        eml(1, exp(e - ln(y))) = ln(y)          # 6 + y; construction from eq (5)
                         ln(1) = 0              # 7

              eml(ln x, exp y) = x - y          # 9 + x + y

                   x - (0 - y) = x + y          # 25 + {x} + {y}

https://claytonwramsey.com/blog/prompt/

discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43888803

All of the output beyond the prompt contains, definitionally, essentially no useful information. Unless it's being used to translate from one human language to another, you're wasting your reader's time and energy in exchange for you own. If you have useful ideas, share them, and if you believe in the age of LLMs, be less afraid of them being unpolished and simply ask you readers to rely on their preferred tools to piece through it.

It's not about political consensus.

However, the paper that introduced it and proved it possible, Lamport's "The Part Time Parliament", used an involved (and often cited as confusing) "Parliament" metaphor for computers in a distributed system

"Consensus" in distributed systems need not be limited to majorities; it really just requires no "split brain" is possible. For example, "consensus" is achieved by making one server the leader, and giving other servers no say. A majority is just the 'quorum' which remains available with that largest number of unavailable peers possible.

In the "dense JSON" format, isn't representing removed/absent struct fields with `0` and not `null` backwards incompatible?

If you remove or are unaware of a `int32?` field, old consumers will suddenly think the value is present as a "default" value rather than absent

You can have Dependabot enabled, but turn off automatic PRs. You can then manually generate a PR for an auto-fixable issue if you want, or just do the fixes yourself and watch the issue number shrink.

Banning the playing of third-party Russian roulette, where you hold a mostly unloaded gun to the head of your neighbors, coworkers, and service staff, actually more accurately represents the risks involved to both yourself and the public, and importantly to the personal tax and effort required.

Your customers don't want to do stuff with AI.

They want to do stuff faster, better, cheaper, and more easily. (JtbD claims you need to be at least 15% better or 15% cheaper than the competition -- so if we're talking "AI", the classical ML or manual human alternative)

If the LLM you're trying to package can't actually solve the problem, obviously no one will buy it because _using AI_ OBVIOUSLY isn't anyone's _job-to-be-done_

Also, having viable third party choices puts more pressure on larger parties to field more widely palatable candidates, or risk losing their majorities

There are clear formalizations of concepts like Consistency in distributed systems, and there are algorithms that correctly achieve Consensus.

What does it mean to formalize the "Single Source of Truth" principle, which is a guiding principle and not a predictive law?

With computers such a huge part of almost everyone's lives now, it's a travesty for one of the largest companies in the world to inflict something so subpar on so many old-style

Interesting video story: https://youtu.be/9aHfK8EUIzg (2016)

Data site: https://xd.saul.pw/data

Plagiarism is bad for a lot of reasons, all of which also apply to the undisclosed use of generative AI.

In contrast, all data centers (not just AI) currently use less than 1.5% of all electricity, making up less than 0.3% of global emissions [2]. Although recent increases in data center electricity usage is lamentable, even in the short term future, much of this can and more importantly _will_ be low-carbon energy, and the ratio should continue to improve with time.

A 1% reduction in livestock emissions is therefore about the same as a 50% reduction in data center emissions.

[1]: https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environm...

[2]: https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/understanding-the-car...